[The Earl Of Slander]

Originally Posted by SYRFox

A metaphor: the objective reality is like a FLAC file and we only get the 128kbps stream

A better metaphor: The objective reality is this, and we only get this.

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

I don't think the human mind can fully comprehend the objective reality, but I do think it exists.

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

You more educated types should consider wading in. The water's warm.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by pbradley

requesting rule 34 on object and subject, plz

 

Isn't rule 34 already its own object and subject? Or am I cheating?

[pbradley]

I know I'm satisfied with that macro.

[Pookie]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

any of you cockswains ever heard of the weak anthropic principle? read up on it-- it will cut through this bullshit like hot spunk on butter.

The weak anthropic principle is interesting but ultimately a load of old wank.

[Glice]

Quite. It doesn't so much 'cut through it' as it apes existing metaphysics with different terms. Valid, legitimate, but ultimately, a load of old wank.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Pookie

The weak anthropic principle is interesting but ultimately a load of old wank.

it's a tautology that defeats marijuana-fueled speculations.

Originally Posted by Glice

Quite. It doesn't so much 'cut through it' as it apes existing metaphysics with different terms. Valid, legitimate, but ultimately, a load of old wank.

if you equate metaphysics with old wank you are correct.

the strong anthropic principle is wank and metaphysics ("god made this world for us")-- the weak one however postulates that our consciousness must have emerged in a universe consistent with it, hence it's no surprise we can observe it-- no miracle required-- it requires evolution not intelligent (puke) design. what this implies however is the existence of a world that is fundamentally consistent, hence "objective" (this word is shit but i'm interpreting the OP's intentions)

actually you don't even need the weak anthropic nothing, no cosmology-- scientific observation and the fact that experiments can be reproduced is enough indication that there's a consistent thing that we're a part of and while we can't know it completely it's there and that's why we all have to take a shit on a regular basis.

[Toilet & Bowels]

that's fine if reality consists of nothing but lab work

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

that's fine if reality consists of nothing but lab work

would you mind if i use that line in an argument I anticipate having with someone in a few days?

[Toilet & Bowels]

go for it

[floatingslowly]

any objective reality that dares to show its face will promptly be assassinated by the internet.

no worries. nothing will ever be really real.

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

 

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

that's fine if reality consists of nothing but lab work

of course not, but the thread poster asked if such reality exists-- the answer is obviously yes. we share a motherfucking universe with consistent "laws", physical constants, predictable chemical reactions that give rise to biological systems, eventually neurons, eventually consciousnes, and such consciousness is basically consistent with the world where it was grown-- of course there are crazies and mutations that don't survive-- because they are inconsistent with such "objective" world.

now, within that consciousness is where we think we *really* live, and those realities are far from "objective", and as varied as snowflakes-- all of them different-- still, all snowflakes are snowflakes-- there is some intersubjectivity that is possible thanks to that common ground, our common genetic makeup, and phenotype, and millions of years of animal behavior, that makes cultures fundamentally the same at the root of it (if you're a marxist you'll say for example that it all boils down to economics), and the rest is the icing on the fucking cake where one people put the butter on top of the bread and other people put the butter in the bottom and they go to war because of it as dr seuss would put it.

but yes, between certain people there are vast distances that can never, will never be crossed, due to their subjectivities being so fucking dischordant that very little understanding is possible. you know how sometimes it's impossible to communicate with someone.

of course, both of those people will have to take a shit at some point. a fact of life & the "objective" world. and you know, in spite of the belief that most people wanna have that they are so special and unique and individual and one of a kind, that's more of a narcissistic pipe dream fostered by capitalism than an actual "objective" fact-- we're more similar and more common than we want to admit.

/end of.

[Glice]

!¬"£$%/ Ned - I find your line of antagonism EXCEPTIONALLY irritating. However, I realise that any decent counter-argument would just be batted off. You don't win, you're just a cunt.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Glice

!¬"£$%/ God - I find your line of antagonism EXCEPTIONALLY irritating.

victory! getting a rise out of complete strangers is an achievement, especially when they take your random comments personally. please don't be paranoid however-- for your own sanity.

Originally Posted by Glice

However, I realise that any decent counter-argument would just be batted off. You don't win, you're just a cunt.

if your army routs, i don't care why, i definitely win. no excuses. now, time for me to rape & pillage your cities.

[Toilet & Bowels]

it's more like people just can be bothered discussing something with a smart alec who is too pig headed to ever concede any point ever.

[EVOLghost]

not while I'm eating....like now...cause Im' eating.

[the ikara cult]

Relativism just winds me up. Its the arguement that people with easy access to a Buddhist Youtube channel put forward. If youre gonna have a moral or political conviction you should be prepared to back it to the hilt, thats all i ask.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

it's more like people just can be bothered discussing something with a smart alec who is too pig headed to ever concede any point ever.

why would i concede a point to metaphysics-- something that can be neither observed nor proven, and therefore, however beautifully constructed, is nothing but a bunch of wishful thinking, i.e., a load of old stale wank? "i believe"-- ok, you believe, good for you, i applaud your faith (not really) but that can't be shared and doesn't convince anyone else. weren't you a proclaimed marxist anyway? if so, are you a liberation theology jesuit? they are the only ones clever enough to bridge such opposing ideologies as marxism and theism. but it's all a bunch of rhethoric in the end-- i like it, it helps convince the naive masses to remove the oppressor's boot from their necks without fear of hell and damnation, and for that i support it, but it has no intrinsic truth value.

anyway-- metaphysics as an entertainment, yes-- the way for example borges wrote stories as if certain metaphysical ideas were real-- fertile manure for the mind, fun stuff, dreams. like your favorite comic book, sandman. pataphysics too-- brilliant.

anyway, feel free to continue whingeing about my internet persona-- it's entertaining read but it proves no point in this discussion whatsoever.

not to say i discuss any of this in a formal fashion and with a serious tone-- i enjoy playing the belligerent asshole on the internetS, but i still make a point relevant to the discussion. you? make a point-- and make it good so i can concede it-- yes? try it. come on. try.